It sounds to me like these have become what we call “Signfarer.” Games players will submit signs because they think they can be approved without any understanding of Wayfarer criteria. Then those same people will approve them while reviewing because they have seen them in the game “so they must be eligible.” It becomes a cycle that is hard to break.
I do not live in Japan, but, frankly, i do not believe this argument that people contemplate the cultural value of a bridge because it has a nameplate. All the bridges in my area have plates that list what year they were built and what roads or rivers they cross. No one cares. Not one person thinks about that as they use the bridge.
Reviewers can choose to accept whichever wayspots they want to. They are not forced to follow criteria. The hope is that the majority decision is correct, which is why each wayspot is reviewed multiple times not just once or twice.
Each individual nomination needs to be assessed to see if it is eligible, and if this nomination is acceptable.
The signs if they simply record the designated name and date etc sound as though that is basic information designed to be an administrative tool to distinguish the bridge. That does not sound as though that type would normally be eligible.
My understanding is that they are submitted as a proxy for the bridge.
The bridge itself can be considered. The onus is on the submitter to make the case that this bridge is worthy of acceptance. Has it outstanding architectural merit. Did something of historical importance take place here or is it just a routine bridge for a road.
All of the above is about applying first principles (A keystone of wayfarer) and it applies anywhere in the world.
Both reviewers and submitters should app,y those principles.
You have repeatedly claimed that bridge nameplates have cultural significance in Japan and that people actively engage with them as part of an exploratory experience.
Can you provide evidence of that cultural interest outside of Wayfarer?
For example, in England there are websites, guidebooks, online communities, and even maps dedicated to locating historic post boxes and rare royal ciphers. This demonstrates that people have an established interest in them that exists independently of Wayfarer. The cultural and exploratory value can be observed whether Wayfarer exists or not.
Can you provide similar evidence for standard bridge nameplates in Japan? Are there websites, publications, organizations, tourist guides, community groups, or other examples showing that people actively seek out bridge nameplates because of their names or construction dates?
If the only evidence being offered is that bridge nameplates are frequently approved within Wayfarer, then that is circular reasoning. Approval cannot be used as proof of eligibility because eligibility is the very question being debated.
In other words, I would need evidence that these bridge nameplates are recognized as objects of cultural or exploratory interest outside of Wayfarer itself. If their significance exists only because Wayfarer reviewers have chosen to approve them, then I do not believe that demonstrates they meet the exploration criterion.
The only proof you’ve given is a stamp rally. The other places on this particular stamp rally are not automatically eligible to be Wayspots, so I don’t know why the bridge nameplates would be either.
There’s a:
Parking area
Roadside station
Service area
a shop
an Exchange center
None of those places seem like good Wayspots. They do seem like places to encourage business transactions in the local area, so I understand why they appear on a stamp rally. There are some pretty bridges in this area that might qualify as Wayspots based on the scenic views or their interesting engineering. But so far, you have not provided evidence that bridge nameplates are as culturally important you think they are. Unfortunately, “few traces that highlight this practice” typically means that it is not actually common.
I dont think Scopely will issue blanket statement on this. Anyway each wayspot need to be reviewed by its own merit. While some bridge with plaque might be more interesting, there will be some that might be less interesting. It will come back to each reviewer to make their own judgement whether the bridge fit wayfarer criteria or no
This is because you are refusing to engage with what people are telling you, and are insisting that bridge nameplates are highly valuable cultural artefacts simply because Pokemon Go players use them.
This discussion is indeed fruitless, but that is because you are not listening, not because other forum members are not engaging.
I found your take on this topic genuinely interesting to read.
Personally, I think bridges can be either approved or rejected depending on the situation, but the way they’re handled should be fairly restrained.
I don’t think my view is all that different from what others have said, so I won’t repeat the basics.
But in this particular case, I believe we’re seeing the same long‑standing issue in Japan finally bubbling to the surface.
Outside of bridges, Japan already has a situation where any information board gets approved, no matter what it is.
If the situation with bridges is similar, then we’ve already reached a point where fixing it through normal review practices is basically impossible.
That’s why nothing will move in the right direction unless the Wayfinder group that originally spread the idea that “all bridges and all information boards are eligible” openly retracts that claim and makes sure the correction actually spreads.
And even if they do correct it, the negative cycle will continue forever unless every incorrectly approved wayspot is removed.
People judge based on what they see in front of them, after all.
測量標について（日本語版）